What Is More to Blame (Looking Back)

[de officiis]

That's because there is no "objective world".

Say that to yourself the next time you stub your toe in the dark.

[SuburbanFarmer]

That's because there is no "objective world".

Say that to yourself the next time you stub your toe in the dark.

On the closely bound subatomic field of an object sitting on top of another field that I’m walking on.

All of it merely attracted to the mass of a massive object spinning through the void around a more massive object, which is so heavy that it’s atoms are fusing, and providing radiation to feed a self-perpetuating chemical system that supports my mind.

[BjornP]

That's because there is no "objective world".

Say that to yourself the next time you stub your toe in the dark.

On the closely bound subatomic field of an object sitting on top of another field that I’m walking on.

All of it merely attracted to the mass of a massive object spinning through the void around a more massive object, which is so heavy that it’s atoms are fusing, and providing radiation to feed a self-perpetuating chemical system that supports my mind.

If nothing's objective, there is no mass, no object, no spinning through the void, no radition, no atoms, no chemical system, no mind and therefore no you.

Or me.

Or this screen.

Or these words.

Or your understanding of these words.



Or that gif...

Or...

[SuburbanFarmer]

Say that to yourself the next time you stub your toe in the dark.

On the closely bound subatomic field of an object sitting on top of another field that I’m walking on.

All of it merely attracted to the mass of a massive object spinning through the void around a more massive object, which is so heavy that it’s atoms are fusing, and providing radiation to feed a self-perpetuating chemical system that supports my mind.

If nothing's objective, there is no mass, no object, no spinning through the void, no radition, no atoms, no chemical system, no mind and therefore no you.

Or me.

Or this screen.

Or these words.

Or your understanding of these words.



Or that gif...

Or...

All of it’s subjective to the mind viewing it. We can measure things, but they’re only the effects of other things. Possibly a great, pulsing energy field, and nothing more.

[Speaker to Animals]

Your sense data represents objective reality fairly accurately. In the first twenty minutes of that lecture I posted earlier, John Searle demolishes the idea that your reality is created for you in your brain. It's a category error.

[BjornP]

All of it’s subjective to the mind viewing it. We can measure things, but they’re only the effects of other things. Possibly a great, pulsing energy field, and nothing more.

So, if a person just percieves a rifle aimed at him as harmless, the projectile will not harm him? Or if his back is turned, and he doesn't see the bullet, it's not there? So, IOW, all you need to do to avoid death is... have faith?

We may interpret and react to reality subjectively. Physical reality or the natural world itself is objective. Your brain works in the way brains objectively work, no matter how you use your brain. A piece of text is objectively written letters on paper or a digital file, but you will subjectively get something different from the text than someone else.

[SuburbanFarmer]

All of it’s subjective to the mind viewing it. We can measure things, but they’re only the effects of other things. Possibly a great, pulsing energy field, and nothing more.

So, if a person just percieves a rifle aimed at him as harmless, the projectile will not harm him? Or if his back is turned, and he doesn't see the bullet, it's not there? So, IOW, all you need to do to avoid death is... have faith?

We may interpret and react to reality subjectively. Physical reality or the natural world itself is objective. Your brain works in the way brains objectively work, no matter how you use your brain. A piece of text is objectively written letters on paper or a digital file, but you will subjectively get something different from the text than someone else.

The effects can be predictable and objective, but your perception of them is entirely subjective.

There is no “sound” of the rifle firing, only air vibrations interpreted by the brain as such. There is an “impact” of the bullet on the pre-existing systems of your body, but it’s merely a reordering of molecules. There’s no objective “meaning” to the event, though you can predict what will happen.

[Fife]

[SuburbanFarmer]

Your sense data represents objective reality fairly accurately. In the first twenty minutes of that lecture I posted earlier, John Searle demolishes the idea that your reality is created for you in your brain. It's a category error.

It interprets the data consistently. There’s a big difference.

[Speaker to Animals]

Your sense data represents objective reality fairly accurately. In the first twenty minutes of that lecture I posted earlier, John Searle demolishes the idea that your reality is created for you in your brain. It's a category error.

It interprets the data consistently. There’s a big difference.

You are still operating from a false assumption. I cannot explain it better than John Searle.

You confuse the seeing with an object being seen.